Life is a journey. The destination is death. This blog is all about the musings of a sojourner in her thirties, curious about the stops, the fellow passengers, the driver(s), the conditions of travel and the highlights and lowlights. All the while in a place of tranquility: the sanctuary.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

The Contract killers

This post is not about hit-men and gangsters, I promise :-)

A common theme in The Manosphere is that 'the social contract' has been broken.
Meaning that men have always held up their end of the bargain by being men and doing what men do - i.e. building civilisation for both themselves and the collective of women and children.
But the women turned into strange hybrid creatures that aren't recognisable anymore.And now a man has to go out there to build skyscrapers and then come home and cook his own darn dinner.

Or something to that effect.

It is no joke.
No-one is laughing.
Because the problem is really complicated.
And so the solution, if one will ever be found, will have to be equally complicated.

I tried to ask this question before in 'Dissidents of the 'Spheres' but I didn't really get clear answers.
This is all I got in answer to the question:Who or what is the real culprit here? Who is the 'contract killer'?

Men: Well, it's not us, because in fact we are the ones who began asking the question. It can't be us, by definition - our definition.

Women: Actually, we don't have time to answer this question. We are feeding ourselves, killing our own snakes, looking after the kids and caring for 95 year old great-grandma. We are too tired for this discussion. Zzzzzzzzz.

Do women have a point?

It is not a myth that modern woman is one tired daughter of a gun.
Whether she chose it or not, that is her lot.
But she is not lazy. That is not the problem. It is not the work per se which is the problem.
The problem is that she is doing everything.

I mentioned before that the State/Employer is killing the nice girl.
Sometimes this is quite literal.

But I am not going to dwell on this side of things for now.

There is another way the State is killing nice girl.

Danny touched on this in one of his recent posts.
Three women were discussing how one of them could cash in on her ten year marriage if only she would wait it out so that she does get to the ten year barrier. Because after ten years of marriage, she could get X % of husband's earnings, including his retirement money.

No need to discuss how abominable this kind of thinking is.
But the point of this post is, can and should a woman be blamed for accepting low-hanging fruit?
Can an alcoholic be blamed for falling off the wagon if someone accidentally hands him a bottle of gin after he completes the rehab session and was dry for 4 months straight?
Is the state making 'recidivous alcoholics' of women?

If the divorce laws were not as they were, would women be quick to head for the divorce courts?

It is a well-publicised fact that Barbara Felters, ex-wife of tennis star Boris Becker flew to Florida from Germany and filed for divorce from him from Florida, after yet another one of his flings.
Why?
Because the financial reward and the custody laws were more 'woman-friendly' in Florida than in Germany and she was able to sidestep their prenuptial agreement which woud have gotten her considerably less money than what she got from the Florida petition.
She took advantage of the laws in Florida. She took the path of least resistance when she wanted to divorce her cheating husband.
Can one blame her, really? She had two sons to raise. Was she wrong to go for more money?

In any case it is one thing to be disgusted at celebrity divorce settlements because of the colossal amounts of money involved.
But what about average Mrs X? Are the amounts she is awarded in a divorce out of proportion to what is fair too? Even if there are children involved?
Some men accuse women of not using awarded child support money on the kids but on themselves.
Is this verifiable? In all fairness I never heard of a child dying of starvation whilst Mum went on a shopping spree to Rodeo Drive, but if anyone has eveidence to this effect I would be at least willing to hear it. Even if it would make me sick.

There are some people who are so principled that they will never take the easy route no matter how much the easy route is shoved in their faces.
Ramadan is a perid of fasting for Muslims, as we all know, which is daily from dawn to dusk for about a month.
But what if you live in a Nordic country where the sun won't set until close to midnight in the summer months, if at all?
In countries like this, the advice is to follow Saudi Arabian time.
And yet, there are Muslims who will endeavour to fast the entire duration of the Nordic summer day.
These are people who are saying: No-one will be permitted to soften the rules for me. If I live in Sweden, I shall fast from dawn to dusk like I would in Saudi Arabia. No-one will sugarcoat things for me. Nobody will sweeten the deal on my behalf. I feel the full pain of the bitter deal, or I don't accept the deal at all.
Masochist or honourable member of the faithful?

In related news, Muslims are in uproar at the London Olympics right now, because Ramadan coincides with the Games. This will put practising Muslim athletes at a disadvantage.
But I am sure the devout, even in this situation, will find a way.

Resisting the temptation to pick the low-lying fruit is not for everybody though.
Is there something that can be done to stop the trend of truly greedy women who want to line their pockets with the spoils of their broken marriage?

If women are to be the feminine creatures that men want, is it time for men in the mainstream to be the masculine creatures that women want in a much more widely visible way?
I am not asking for the Taliban or anything.
Just a dose of masculine authority.
If the divorce laws are so abhorent to men, why can't something be done to fix it?
There are women who find it equally abhorent that some women are giving all women a bad name, by the way. But do men have a solution that works? Or is this issue way too complicated to be resolved?
Feminism will persist unless men topple it, even if women turn their backs on it.

Here's a video I found on Christian J's blog.
In it, a father is attempting to set his daughter straight after she is disrespectful to him and her mother on Facebook.
I am sure the daughter does not realise this right now (she is 15 or so and is naturally 'challenging'. Hey, it happens :-)
But she is indeed one of the lucky ones.

The future child of this woman may not be so lucky. He or she will get intimately acquainted with the term 'father hunger' and will get the feeling that there is not a man in the world who has his or her back. At least not quite like this man is demonstrating below.

Can we get this man to sort out the divorce laws please?

If he wants to run for President, I'll vote for him*.
Because he is 'a real man'. A real father.
And Patriarchy works.
His daughter will be on the straight and narrow again in no time at all. Because she has a Dad who cares.

Why am I so particular about this issue?
Because women want and need masculine men.
And then of course they will turn around and 'complain' about them :-)
But that is a sign of affection, don't you know? I think Michelle Obama demonstrates this beautifully here.
The not-so-masculine men will simply be avoided or strung along with the LJBF line.
This is important: masculine man=adored but nonetheless complained about, the others=not even worth complaining about.
This is why learning some Game (the good kind - I do not think this includes Tucker Max antics by the way) is important for all boys and men to learn nowadays.
Because the good guys will get a chance to attract a woman who currently is being lured away from them by the alpha bad boys who happen to be kings of Game.

This man below is a good guy. He actually wants his daughter to be an upright citizen with standards.
And he is really masculine too.
Heaven.
He is living proof that sometimes one can indeed have it all :-)

Incidentally, right at the end of the video, one finds reason to laud the mother of the girl in question too. I find it so cool that she is behind Dad in his disciplining of his daughter. She is not standing in his way. Because she knows Dad is right. She knows the value of Dad's input in daughter's life, even if she and Dad are no longer together.
(Note to self: aim to be a mother like this one day).
I am sure she is a sensible woman. I am pretty sure she would not endorse a punishment which far outweighs the crime. I am sure she would be the kind of Mum who would stop Dad from going too far in his disciplinary action, if necessary.
Just a hunch.

I promised at the beginning of this post that it would not be about hit-men and gangsters...
But, with all the shooting going on in the video below, erm...I might have been too hasty with my promises :-)
(Before you watch the video, rest assured that no-one - humans nor animals were actually shot. One innocent little laptop was not so lucky though...)

"Why am I so particular about this issue?Because women want and need masculine men.And then of course they will turn around and 'complain' about themBut that is a sign of affection, don't you know? I think Michelle Obama demonstrates this beautifully here."

That's not the kind of affection I want from my wife.

"There are women who find it equally abhorent that some women are giving all women a bad name, by the way. But do men have a solution that works? Or is this issue way too complicated to be resolved?"

Men Going Their Own Way. For one simple, inescapable reason: Even if the laws were all changed tomorrow, even if all divorce decrees were changed to a far more equitable settlement, the fact remains that an entire generation of women have been raised to disparage, disrespect and dislike, men. Who the HELL wants to sort through that kind of mental anguish?

For a long time, men WERE masculine creatures, then in the 60s and 70s, machismo was out and sensitive was in. The more conservative (politically and socially) 1980s reversed this a little, then in the 1990s, it returned far more strongly than before. Now, in the 21st century, men are finally saying they've had enough pretensions and flip-flopping, we're going to do our own thing, our way and our lives. The very fact that are men's rights groups and a Manosphere in existence tells us that the numbers are growing fast, too.

"But the point of this post is, can and should a woman be blamed for accepting low-hanging fruit?"

It's no longer a question of how do we change it, but rather, why should we try? Just as I slammed SOME men for only wanting sex, the other day on your blog post about going Dutch on a date, let me now slam SOME women. If getting laid is the first priority (or even the ONLY priority) for some males on dates, how do we rate women whose first or only priority is getting money from a man? If they want money that badly, and are willing to trade 10 years of their lives, and sex, to get it, why not become that prostitute that some men will pay for?

Want someone to blame? It's not just the feminists. According to the theory of Patriarchy, only men were in charge when this whole thing began, therefore those men that chose to enact these laws and policies are as much to blame as the feminist women who betrayed the original goals of equality between the genders. Betty Friedan actually wrote in the 60s that alimony was just another way for men to control women, only to change her tune when she found out women had nothing after a divorce, except child support if she got custody. Suddenly, feminism decided that women weren't all that independent after all, and that men had to pay for the divorce, and pay and pay and...

No one has ever guaranteed marriage to be a perfect union of two people, just as no one has ever guaranteed life is fair. I've already admitted that marriage is a lot more difficult than anyone ever warned me, but somehow, 75% (approximately) of no fault divorces in the USA are initiated by the female. Picking low hanging fruit, or plucking the still beating heart from a man's chest? Divorce is a two way street, and no one is ever blameless, but the way things are now, I would not advise you, my grandkids, or anyone that they get married.

"If the divorce laws were not as they were, would women be quick to head for the divorce courts?"

As usual, you make some very important points.Yes, that last question should be rhetorical :-)But you also say that if all the laws were changed tomorrow, it wouldn't change anything...

I am confused, Sir, help me out here.Note that in conjunction with changing the laws I do accept that young women's attitudes towards men ought to change too, i.e. women really ought to be against feminism, at least nth wave feminism (i.e. the crazy version).

The two really have to go hand in hand before any real changes can occur. I do suspect, though, that women have to change FIRST, before the men feel the need to react to the laws...I have my own reasons for believing this.And the women who know, will agree that this is indeed the case.

Anyway, thanks for your answer. I am still waiting for Bill's. Then perhaps I will have a more complete picture in my mind.

It doesn't matter that men change first or take the first step toward an equilibrium. No normal woman will follow his lead in today's social climate. Few women will leave the village and follow the outcast. Women usually behave with the herd.

And it's because women have not been taught in the past decades to DO anything worthwhile and wholesome- beyond ever more schooling, partying and corporate whoring.

Action (the whole package of problem solving, risk assessment, physical violence/protection) has been the realm of males anyway, and MGTOW is a valid option for those who want to Act by 'NOT Acting'. And for MGTOW, they won't react after the women figure it out. They're gone.

So yes, modern women are stuck in this weird hybrid: you don't embrace your natural strengths of nurture and femininity, but you're not as capable as a man in terms of Action.

The only practical shift will occur when most (not some) women admit there IS a problem with anything. Only after every woman agrees there is a problem can a solution manifest.

It's great that ST is among the first few who gets it. But women are behind the vanguard of men- called the manosphere - by 5-10 years.

We all know there is a biological time cost for women's fertility. The ascent of feminism wasted the best decade of its ignorant female followers; feminism's 20+ year decline will waste the best decades of today's young females, only their eyes will be wide open, with tears.

I can hear the wails in my mind already. I don't feel pity or scorn for them, but righteous rage toward well-deserving feminist bitches and manginas.

Let me offer a small glimpse of the solution, because I can only see it myself dimly.

Changing the situation requires changing the culture, before everything else.

A few years ago, I was visiting a company that completely replaced its corporate headquarters. They tore down a Depression-era office building and replaced it with an incredibly modern, functional showcase.

They explained that the new building was part of a corporate culture change. They went on to say that they wanted to change their business strategy and decided that they had to change their culture, first.

"Corporate culture trumps corporate strategy every time."

At the root of our cultural trainwreck is a culture of self-loathing. It has been growing strongly for over a century.

A manifestation of this self-loathing is a hatred of truth and a celebration of the false. Shunning beauty and embracing ugliness. if you don't believe me, look at Modern Art.

The drill instructor told one of the recruits in Full Metal Jacket "You're so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece." QED

Marriage 2.0 is a product of the branch of Feminism which seeks to elevate women by destroying the masculine. And a product of contraception-on-demand.

"It doesn't matter that men change first or take the first step toward an equilibrium. No normal woman will follow his lead in today's social climate."

Wrong. Just so very wrong. Men who want patriarchy and a stable society have to be leaders. Can't have one without the other. If you expect others to lead, you're not a leader. So whining about women not going along with what you want is just an excuse. Because many women will and the ones who don't will find out pretty quickly that they don't like what they have. What kind of leader says, "I'll start leading when I everyone else does what I want them to do without me having to tell them first?"

GREAT post, ST. I am so tired of the Whinosphere. What good are they doing for society? Absolutely zilch. And what's more, look at how they treat the women who do value family, morals, and traditional values. They treat them horribly...probably even worse than how they treat their little girlfriends. (Who, as far as I can tell, comprise the bottom 10% of women in terms of intelligence and morals, even though strangely these men think they're representative of all women.) That, to me, says everything about what kind of men they are.

Just wanted to add: divorce laws are not the problem. Do I agree with divorce? No, not at all. Especially with re-marriage. But the reason why the Whinosphere hates divorce laws is because they want marriage on their terms--they want to be horrible, selfish men and suffer no consequences for it. Divorce doesn't happen in a vacuum. And in cases of abuse of infidelity, neither of which is rare, women must have a way of protecting themselves.

None of the good married men I know, who have made the sacrifices necessary to have a stable family and to marry good, decent women, are at all worried about their wives divorcing them. I never hear them mention it. Mention sacrifice to the men in the Whinosphere and see how well that goes down.

I saw that post of Dannyfrom504's blog, too, and it made me really sad. I had no idea that kind of thing was going on. There's a blatant and obvious case where men are making sacrifices and holding up their end of the bargain by preserving civilization and are getting treated horribly in return for it. A lack of loyalty and commitment among women is tragic. So I don't by any means think all women are martyrs or victims. The statistics in that post (and in the comments) were very depressing.

"So yes, modern women are stuck in this weird hybrid: you don't embrace your natural strengths of nurture and femininity, but you're not as capable as a man in terms of Action."

I agree with you on this. Many women have been 'misinformed'.But there are lots of women who are genuinely and naturally feminine and were untouched by the scourge of feminism. But some of these women haven't had a date in years. Whilst their promiscuous sisters are getting on nicely it seems. I think this point was made recently at HUS too.And I am not only referring to the under-25 crowd...

And true, the MAJORITY of women will need to come around for things to work for everyone. Of that I am totally sure. However, there are always rare exceptions.

"It doesn't matter that men change first or take the first step toward an equilibrium. No normal woman will follow his lead in today's social climate."

I am afraid I am with CD's response to you on this one. Most women WILL respond to a good leader. It's kind of wired into the female psyche afterall. That's precisely why Game works. Because women want the masculine, and Game teaches men to be just that. I have a slight problem with the 'tricks' and manipulations, though, but that's for another day :-)

The point here is, you may be underestimating women's ability to respond to strong leadership. Feminism is ony still alive because it is the louder voice at the moment. And it is the only voice some women are hearing.

@ Bill,Thanks for your solution. Look forward to hearing the rest.

"A manifestation of this self-loathing is a hatred of truth and a celebration of the false. Shunning beauty and embracing ugliness. if you don't believe me, look at Modern Art."

Hmm, I have noticed this too. But I just thought I was not appreciating art properly given that I am not into art :-)It does seem that things have been turned on their heads lately. Bad appears to be the new good.

I find it interesting that you are agreeing with the men that divorce laws are not the problem!

:-)

But the difference in your answers lies in who or what you believe is the problem...

So... it doesn't look like we need our gun-toting friend in the video to go fix the legal system for us.OK. I am sure he has his hands full with sorting out his daughter for now anyway :-)

You, Bill and NC all seem to be saying that individuals need to get their individual acts together. That's the only way to get the collective win.

That makes a lot of sense to me.It does seem however that this would require uncharacteristic heroics from a society that is heavily into narcissism and hedonism though...Is it really possible to expect society to act like the proverbial Muslim in Northern Sweden?

"That, to me, says everything about what kind of men they are."

I cannot find a way to disagree with this one. Believe me, I am trying :-)Quality seeks quality. Non-quality seeks non-quality. Unless one or other party is a good pretender - and a good contender for an Oscar.

"None of the good married men I know, who have made the sacrifices necessary to have a stable family and to marry good, decent women, are at all worried about their wives divorcing them."

This is beautiful, CD. If a man trusts his woman like this, he is indeed a blessed man. So many men either cannot envisage this level of trust having seen their fathers kicked in the goolies, or have had a woman betray them in the worst way possible themselves and are now 'unhinged'.Let's hope your friends' wives hold up their end of the bargain.

I agree with you that military wives especially, more than any other group of women need to be exemplary.Because their men are the ones with the most potential pain if they are betrayed.

[Wrong. Just so very wrong. Men who want patriarchy and a stable society have to be leaders. Can't have one without the other. If you expect others to lead, you're not a leader. So whining about women not going along with what you want is just an excuse. Because many women will and the ones who don't will find out pretty quickly that they don't like what they have. What kind of leader says, "I'll start leading when I everyone else does what I want them to do without me having to tell them first?" ]

Men who want patriarchy are already revolutionary outliers, who are so far removed from their more emasculated modern males. The more masculine males are not the norm in the bell curve.

I'm not advocating for leaders to whine for followers. Good leaders will naturally gain them with their deeds.

Few normal, run-of-the-mill women would follow any lead of a reforming run-of-the-mill beta man/husband because the social risk of abandoning the herd comfort of the dominant female social attitudes is too great.Joining an outcast walking out the village and leaving the herd? Most women IMO are much more risk-adverse.

Why should a woman risk serious character and attitude reform against ingrained teachings, when she can be rewarded by staying with the herd mentality? (i.e. divorcing/breaking marital commitments and being rewarded in the process) Why not stay with the low-hanging fruit?

It's not about leadership, it's about if the great body of women will figure it out by themselves in time, to minimize suffering and tragedy.

Those few women who dare risk change will join the male red-pill outcasts to leave the burning village. They'll form the seedlings of the next trend for gender relations.

But the remaining bulk of the female herd won't deal with the rot in the village until the great body of women recognize something is wrong by "themselves". They will pick the low hanging fruit until there's nothing left.

So, if no normal(as in average) woman will follow the lead of a reforming man because the status quo rewards most women for bad behaviour, what will be the spark for such internal reflection/catharsis?

More child abuse? We've seen a generation or two of (poor parenting/divorcing + welfare/CS/alimony rewards) which wreck havoc on childhoods (fyi the black community has suffered this longer). More child abuse in that form won't shock us now. It's the norm to abuse children with divorce, which is a great tragedy.

The drying up of financial rewards for divorce? Soon, if Friday's technical Greek default is a signal.

An resurgence in public shaming of anti-family inhumane behavior?

------------

I disagree that most women who don't leave the village will ... "find out pretty quickly that they don't like what they have."

Women of the Western world have had much more schooling than ever before, yet with all the expectations from parents et al about careers and accomplishments, we now see the overall lack of female introspection bearing fruit.

Some women don't bear any children, because they hyper-focus on careers or serial dating. Some just let time pass by without urgency.

We see stories of infidelity where the betrayed father gets raped in court, but the victorious woman may not be very happy with the riches and the tingles.

If most women REALLY didn't like what they have, they would have disengaged sooner from bad behavior and poor prosepects (jerks, players et al.).

Some women don't have the heart-shattering introspection that their lives are a mess. Some of them live in the Nile.

What have most women been thinking for the past decades?

Because really, most of these tragedies equal child abuse IMO. Emotional abuse of children and emotional abuse of the adult women who never really grew up.

Really? You believe this? Let me change it a bit, see if you still agree.

Most women WILL respond to a good male leader who will lead them back to a Patriarchal society.

Maybe if I add in, that divorce laws won't be as bad as they were in the 1950s.... but see, then we're no longer on the same page as the original statement. What Anonymous said was, NORMAL women (clearly you're not normal, from the masculine point of view) won't follow in today's social climate. If I started a campaign tomorrow to demand more severe punishment for ANYONE who lies in divorce court, or ANYONE who falsely accuses ANYONE of rape, would you march in the streets with me? And assuming you practice what you preach, you WILL march with me, do you actually think the majority of women in the USA or UK or Euro community would march with me? That is, after all, one definition of normal... what the norm does.

The sad part about this discussion is that the number of males who actually want to return 100% to the 'good old days' or 'the horrible Patriarchy' (depends on who you talk to) is pretty small, from my own perusals of the internet both male and female oriented. People like you and I, we may be outliers, we may be thought of as strange, but at least we recognize that there were problems in the pure form of Patriarchy. I've said repeatedly that no one should be MADE to stay in a bad marriage even if the excuse given is something akin to 'boredom'.

My wife once told me (and I had noticed, but said nothing) that we hadn't spent a single day together for more than six months. Work, for both of us, had become too stressful, and I called her from work the next day to see when she could take time off. She told me she had just asked (told ya we start to think alike) and found out she could start three weeks vacation the next day.

I called up a travel agent immediately and spent $35k on three weeks in the islands of the South Pacific. We spent all night packing and spent the entire flight sleeping in first class.

Ok, I've also admitted that I'm in the top 1% of wealth in this world, and not every man or woman can afford to do what we did. But it sure seems that people stopped listening to the actual marriage vows a long time ago, and started to add in their own codicils without actually warning their partners. What can we do?

How about changing the marriage law? Force everyone who gets a marriage license to list every single asset they own, both prospective partners. The government will love this one, it gives them a chance to check income tax declarations against actual assets protected by marriage law. All assets acquired after the marriage are 50-50, end of statement. No alimony at all, UNLESS one spouse was required to quit working, because of children or any other reason. Note 'required'. That means both partners have to agree, a man cannot just quit work to be Johnny Homemaker. Anyway, all assets listed at the time of marriage belong to the person listed. Here's the irony.., it won't stop a single divorce from happening, but it would stop tens of thousands of marriages.

Because, despite all the feminist propaganda, despite all the social change, most women still think of men as the provider and most men still define themselves, at least internally, as 'breadwinner, head of household'.

Yeah, I should clarify that by normal, I meant statically normal, as in including the most people of a sample population. Or the central bulk of a bell curve distribution.

@ Navy Corpsman, if history has told us anything, there is no going back, regardless of how many (or few) people want it back. The heydays of the 1950's and 60s are gone, the postwar US boom is gone, the only thing we have is what is now.

The generations before us will respond and react with their own ways befitting of their own times, good or ill.

Thus this great maxim will ring true: In every corner of the world and in every epoch of history, the men and women of every culture deserve each other. (Spengler's Universal Law of Gender Parity, AsiaTimes 2004)

The trend can swing toward a more moderate equilibrium (of which Manosphere and ST's blogs are spearheading), but we are not going back. We, male or female, will adopt our solutions to the rotting cesspool.

As a side note, let's postulate the future financial outlook is strained if not imploding. Then legalist institutions are not funded at all for frivolous activities such as divorce and civil courts (though it is never civil IMO).

I wonder if I will even get married under a hyper-legalistic society within the decade. We may throw the whole kitchen sink as a solution.

Navy Corpsman, doing the right thing does not come with the promise that you will get what you want. That's not how principles work. Principles are things that you do whether you get you want and what you deserve or you don't.

"Navy Corpsman, doing the right thing does not come with the promise that you will get what you want. That's not how principles work. Principles are things that you do whether you get you want and what you deserve or you don't.

That's where you seem to be going wrong."

I won't disagree, Charming Disarray, but I won't fully agree, either. You're assuming that humanity consists of people unwilling to compromise their principles for any reason. I don't want to sound like an old man, but I cannot help it when I say, live long enough and you'll find that at least 40% have no principles to compromise, and at least 40% more would compromise what they have, for a high enough profit. The remaining 20% could most likely split 50-50 depending on the principle involved, and the motivation to violate it. Corruption, bribery, sex scandals and that's just in the last 15 minutes. Add in peer pressure, mob mentality, and many other socio-economic motivations, and we're left with perhaps 10% of the entire human population.

Yet, I see your point, and it's well taken. Amongst people with highly principled value systems, it's well established that those people tend to apply those principles even more highly to themselves, than they expect from other people. Sometimes, people even do the right thing for completely wrong reasons. I have no issue with your statement that you or Spacetraveler would willingly follow a male whose principles matched your own. I just have an issue with stating that most women would do the same. Matter of fact, I have an issue saying that most men would do the same. History just does not bear this out. Some exceptions do exist, Gandhi being a very obvious one. Yet even today, we're finding out from recently discovered material, that Gandhi himself was not too fond of women getting the vote, and his views on woman's sexuality were rather bizarre.

Would those principles he held, be enough to cause women in India to refuse to follow his non-violent doctrine on the path to independence? Obviously, no... but women did not get full universal suffrage until the 1950 Indian constitution.

If I might suggest a slight edit of your statement that I quoted at the beginning of this post:

"Navy Corpsman, doing the right thing does not come with the promise that you will get what you want, but it better come with some sort of chance."

Humans are, to my limited brainpower and imagination, two things. They're tribal and they're ambitious. Neither is bad on its face, but great harm and great tragedy have occurred when either is taken too far. Tribal means us v. them, and wars are the all too common result. Ambitious is fine, til it becomes greed, and I don't doubt you can imagine war as a result of that, also. Sure, this is a gross oversimplification of the immensity of Homo sapiens, but these two traits are universal, as near as I can tell. Nearly everything else I have considered as universal has been proven not so, in my own lifetime of travels and travails. Witness the Arab Spring, the past 14 or so months where people with nothing left to lose decided Janis Joplin was right, and they demanded a change. Yet, as I understand it, many Egyptians refused to join in the demand, not as they were uncomfortable with the principles of the mass of protesters, but because they were uncomfortable with the idea of being shot. According to one blog I read, from an Egyptian male who was in the thick of it from the beginning, he is amazed at the number of people now claiming to be a part of the uprising and overthrow of the dictatorship. It's human nature, again.

How to fix the problem? I'm going to take a different point of view from feminism vs patriarchy for a moment.

The beginning of the 20th century saw a shift from a character based society to a cult of personality based society. (so much so that Snookie is a household name.) Interesting to note how success books have changed over the century.

When I was 18, I read Napoleon Hill. Very character based with some personality aspects thrown in. At 21, I read Tony Robbins. Very personality and psychology based with some character thrown in. I think it reflects what we value and reward in our society.

Strength of character has to be developed and worked on, like a muscle. It's hard, and requires discipline, and purpose, principals and ethics. And it's true test is in how we act when we think no one else will know. It's usually selfless, and in this day and age, rarely rewarded or appreciated.

The cult of personality is glamorous behaviors and charms. It's attractive, manipulative, aggressive, seductive and usually selfish. It's highly rewarded through the ability to influence career, resources, attention and sex.

The more personality driven a society, the more seductive the traits of the individual in order to compete.

If we can balance the two, we may see healthier relations between men and women. As humans, we long for character and personality. They're part of our duality. The divine and the primal. Beta and Alpha.Nurture and seductive. Suppression of either leads to cess pools overt or covert.

But we are suppressing our duality on an individual bases. First women with self loathing towards their feminine side in favor of the seductive. (And I have a few theories that don't just pertain to feminism.) And in doing so, we are leading men into self loathing of their beta nurturing traits.

Interestingly, men and women both want integration,not fractured souls. We both want loving partners. Men want a lady in the parlor and a whore in the bedroom. We want a strong man who can lead yet be protective and commit.

Question is, can the fractured lead the fractured to wholeness, and who is leading who?

Athol seems to have a healthy regard toward developing the alpha and integrating and balancing the beta traits. Others would rather develop the alpha and amputate the beta. Society reflects our conflict.

"Most women WILL respond to a good male leader who will lead them back to a Patriarchal society." Yes, this is a better formulation than what I had said. FWIW, I still agree.

But I notice that you and Anonymous @ 7:09PM do not really agree with me that the majority of women can follow a real man's lead.Fair enough. Perhaps I am being a bit naïve, and don't really know other women as much as I think I do...I guess it makes sense: afterall, I have never dated or married a woman before. Nor am I ever likely to do that. You guys have :-)

@ CD,

"Principles are things that you do whether you get you want and what you deserve or you don't."

Herein lies evidence that you are one of those 'masculine women' we talked about in previous posts. This is what has been described previously as 'outcome independence' - which like 'honour' and 'respect' and 'loyalty' considered by many to be a rather masculine trait, in general. If you practise this, you are an even more widely skewed outlier than I or Bellita ;-)

For the life of me, I simply cannot do anything without an ulterior motive, no matter how altruistic that motive might be.

This is why I identify with NC's modification of your statement:

"Navy Corpsman, doing the right thing does not come with the promise that you will get what you want, but it better come with some sort of chance." Everyone needs a bit of reward for their sacrifice, otherwise there is no motivation.Even the hyper-religious Muslim fasting from 6am to midnight on a Nordic summer day is doing it for some sort of payback, no? It just might not be earthly payback, but it will be payback nonetheless. If I do something that I know will guarantee me eternity in Heaven as opposed to Hell after I die, I don't care how much suffering on this Earth I need to put up with, I'm doing it!

"Thus this great maxim will ring true: In every corner of the world and in every epoch of history, the men and women of every culture deserve each other."

True enough. You reap what you sow.

"They will pick the low hanging fruit until there's nothing left." Interesting to see what will happen then. They will have to learn to climb the tree themselves to go for higher fruit, charm the one or two remaining men in the village into doing this, or (heaven forbid!) chop down the tree altogether to pick all the remaining fruit. And then...nothing, nada, zilch. End of the road.I would really need to be dead and buried at that point :-)I do love the high drama of (Greek) tragedies, but not THAT much :-)

Je t'en prie!That post gave me food for thought...What I find interesting is that this knowledge you now have about this rule in the military does not prevent you from wanting to get married, it just makes you more careful as to who you pick to get married to. I think that's the key. Everyone just needs to have the right information, and than act accordingly. The problem is when people don't have the right information and then walk into something that's way over their heads, or they get the information and then that information puts them off from proceeding at all...kinda like the woman who wants a child but is too afraid of having a relationship with a man, perhaps because her Dad wasn't so great...it's a defeatist attitude.

Can't wait for the update on your blog.

@ JV,

More counsel from you re the individual sorting himself or herself out, similar to what others are saying. That is really refreshing. Clearly the narcissistic world is not working for anyone right now. We all have to stop being so selfish and return to the old value system where putting yourself at the service of others was the norm.

"Men want a lady in the parlor and a whore in the bedroom." I couldn't help chuckling at this.I think the problem with a world that condones contraception outside of marriage, (I think Bill touched on this somewhere) is that men will get a lady in the parlor and a whore in the bedroom before marriage, and a whore in the parlor and a lady in the bedroom after marriage.

But, as you say, 'personality' trumps all...so who needs character?Again, low hanging fruit and all that...Thanks for the insight, as ever :-)

"... men will get a lady in the parlor and a whore in the bedroom before marriage, and a whore in the parlor and a lady in the bedroom after marriage."

If she's a 'lady' in bed after marriage, she's no lady at all. She's being a demure b****.

A lady would honour her commitments and would be a fool to not keep her husband, especially in these days. Grerp says it best in her first article (Stay Married) where many women (good girls or bad) of the near-future will never be married; a wife would be a fool to not keep her marriage from her end.

"But I notice that you and Anonymous @ 7:09PM do not really agree with me that the majority of women can follow a real man's lead."

You call yourself, and Charming Disarray seems to agree that she is also, an outlier, females that prefer masculine men, as well as preferring your potential mates to be a bit old fashioned in certain ways. Not only do I agree, I'm glad to hear it. Nice girls and boys should NOT finish last, no matter what, but that isn't the reality we're seeing in society today. It is entirely possible that you have surrounded yourself with female friends who share your preferences in male traits, or perhaps you're projecting a bit.

But I've seen the peer pressure, or sometimes mob mentality when a group of women begin to talk about women's issues. Anyone who actually agrees that a male has anything useful to say, get shouted down. Call these women, the antithesis of your opinion, but strangely enough, they're not radical feminists (or last wave or whatever). They're just plain folk, but they've been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they can laugh at the news that a man was castrated by his wife and she threw his penis in the garbage disposal. They're reflexively anti-male, so much so, they call for the execution of an accused rapist, before that accused has been indicted, much less convicted... and when the video of the alleged assault shows the alleged victim was 'partying' with five males, completely voluntary on her part, those same people who called for execution lose their voices and certainly would never apologize.

I could go on, but the truth is, we simply do not know for sure how many women would follow a male leader. I have my opinion, you have yours... but for what it is worth, I think a large number of women would follow a female leader back to some old fashioned values and less hateful relations between the genders.

By the way, I married a lady. She's a lady in the parlor, a lady in the kitchen, a lady in the bedroom.... all over the house. Ladies like sex too, despite beliefs to the contrary. In the parlor, the kitchen, the bedroom... all over the house.

About all the dismembering going on, I must say, I don't find it funny whichever gender is being mutilated. Because someone's life is about to be ended prematurely (bleeding to death is a distinct possibility in many cases like this) or the quality thereof is about to be reduced severely.None of it is funny.So I would be just as likely to voice concern and embarrassment at the women on talk shows who thought it was worth laughing at as I would men who thought the same about a woman suffering a similar fate. It's a human thing, no Team Man or Team woman here.

Want to know my main reason why I advise against marriage, for anyone, much less my grandkids? I'm completely mystified why I'm reading THOUSANDS of anecdotal stories about how men/women are the most evil thing on this Earth. Charming Disarray calls the 'Manosphere' the 'Whinosphere'. I suggest she, and you, spend a couple weeks as you have the time, reading the Womanosphere.

I know I have faults, irritating quirks, and my wife ignores them. It's what married people do. Don't ask yourself, 'can I bear to have this person see me naked?' or 'can I bear to see this person naked?'.

Ask instead, could I bear to ignore all his faults, all his peccadilloes, all the things that I don't like, simply because the things I do like are worth any price? Realize that the relations between the sexes, the so-called Gender Wars, didn't used to be a war. Realize, it didn't used to be called a 'Game'. It was a Dance, an elegant effort to find out if this was your One. Some people will tell you, men or women stopped dancing.

It's not true.

Someone stopped the music.

We can choose to call it whining, or try to understand. We can choose to call it a war, or try to start the music again. Either way, we (humanity) still stumble forward, sometimes taking a step backward for every step forward. Everyone makes mistakes. If you want to be forgiven yours, you'll have to forgive others.

I cannot help but agree with you.I really do also believe that not only did someone stop the music, they also turned off the lights and locked the doors of the dance hall.The dancers within are standing around in the dark wondering what just happened...

Some are looking for the CD player to turn the music back on. Others are loking for the light switches. Others are looking for the doors to try and get them unlocked. Others have given up and are taking a nap. Others are trying to take advantage of the darkness to get up to some mischief.

Some people looking in from the outside have seen the carnage and have vowed never to dance again.

I highly agree most women will follow the lead of a strong masculine man. It will still be more difficult than under normal circumstances though. When I started to meet eastern european and asian women for the first time I was shocked to find how differently I felt arround women that truly liked and respected men for being men. There is a hostility in western women towards all things male and towards you being a masculine leading man in addition to their desire for such a man. That, combined with the dogma of society, and to some extent the laws, makes it more difficult to get women to follow. However, they still certainly will. The mistake many guys in the sphere make is wishing it was easier. Wishing for a certain reward. Wishing they could avoid a battle. THe whole point of being a strong masculine man IS to overcome challenges that are there and needs to be overcome. THIS is our test of manhood. To overcome the obstacle of being a masculine reneaisance man and leading our woman and a family and becoming indifferent to the reactions of society in spite of the resistance we meet.

THat said there needs to be and will be and already is independent movement on the female side to work along with this. Women like just visiting who discovered the value of femininity late in life and other women in the sphere who through bumping into Athols blog or recognising their need for a strong man or who sees the mal treatment of her sons in school etc. I think after going a long way in an unatural and unbalanced direction there naturaly will be a movement back towards a more balanced center more in alignment with our natures. What is natrual in regards to gender is hardwired in our psyche and tehre are limits to how long everyone can maintain the official dogmas about feminism without noticing the descrepancy between what they really feel in harmony with and the feminist dogmas they are trying to live their life by. So I think there will be more and more women discovering for themselves views and behaviors that are supportive of the cause and that will also be vital.